I participated in a multi-stage interview process for a senior marketing role, which included an initial hiring screening call, a behavioural interview, and a final presentation task. The interactions with team members I came across varied massively. Luke gave a really good first impression in the screening call, and had me very excited about the role, but as interviews progressed, employees came across very cold, and ultimately unenthused about their being in the interview - which is a shame, because the organisation itself appears to be doing interesting work in its space, but it doesn’t seem to be reflected in these calls. From a senior candidate perspective, the later stages of the process felt quite open-ended, with limited structure or clarity around expectations. In particular, the task brief emphasised a high-level, creative approach based on assumptions rather than detailed operational planning, but the final feedback (which I had to request) suggested that more granular specifics were expected. This created a degree of misalignment between the brief and the evaluation criteria. The final presentation session ended very quickly, and included minimal time for follow-up questions or discussion. For senior roles - where judgement, trade-offs, and contextual decision-making are key - a more interactive conversation would likely provide a fuller assessment of a candidate’s capabilities. As a neurodivergent candidate, clear expectations and structured discussion points are particularly helpful for demonstrating strengths effectively. Greater clarity around what level of detail was desired, and more opportunity to expand verbally, would likely improve accessibility for a wider range of candidates. Overall, I appreciated the opportunity to engage with the team, but more alignment between the task brief, interview format, and assessment criteria would strengthen the process for future applicants - especially for senior positions.